Letters to the Editor
-
@captainlarab
My father was Army, WWII, infantry, Battle of the Bulge, followed by JAG Corps. I'm not a brat: I was born after he resigned his commission. And I'm about as civilian as you can get: Northeastern Ivy and, frankly, even when I was in shape, not fit for admission -- serious myopia. I checked. I also checked direct commission in the late 1970s during the Iran hostage crisis.
I had hopes for Faulkner, but, as you say, she was a glory hound and not up to the task. However, given the hostile environment at El Cid, I think it would have taken National Guard, like the little girl desegregating a public school in the 1950s, to manage being the first there. It makes sense that female cadets or mids entering the academies (are you a ringknocker, ROTC, or OT, yourself?) need to do it quietly, without a whole lot of fanfare. I -was- watching, just as right now, I'm watching what's going on at the Air Force Academy.
I'm also wondering how the segregated MOSes will hold up given the kind of low-intensity conflicts we're seeing. There were women in combat in Grenada, and in Gulf I, flying choppers. Basically, I think after awhile, it'll fade away unless all hell is raised. But I don't -know-, not being there. I know about enough to ask the right questions and cause trouble.
This whole question of military service is a fracture line for a lot of feminists of my age cohort. I remember in 1970 watching Fonda in Hanoi and gasping "but that's 'aid and comfort' and being ceremoniously rebuked, but still muttering "but it IS." Whether women should contribute to the military, whether ANYONE should, and whether any particular use of the military is valid are still grounds for violent arguments even before we leave our pet demographics.
I'd call myself considerably left of center socially, a centrist economically (I'm in financial services), and in terms of defense, it depends. I do go for the just war/right war theories, which other men and women I talk to don't. That's a major difference. The place where we all agree (now that we've all grown up enough to realize that the military is one thing and the civilian top chain of command is something else -- and I do wish people would give us credit for it!) is that reactions to Vietnam split the country, and we are -all- paying for that.
As a civilian, provided they'll put up with me, it's safe for me to interact with both officers and enlisted -- no fraternization. I run into a certain amount of hazing, which gets tiresome. And I'll tell you frankly, I worry about Praetorianism. With the increased politicization -and- rightward swing of the military, I worry about the man on horseback.
At the same time, I'm seeing much the same thing with some of the Obamaphiles, and that worries me too.
Some of the feminists who've posted here don't want more of the same: they -want- change. Without change, there's no growth. But I've come, somewhat regretfully, to the conclusion that this country has been made ill with culture shock. Fortunately, after a rightward swing, I think it's heading back toward the center.
One thing I do think. We're all going to have to learn a hell of a lot more about each other if we're not going to wind up with more of the same. I suspect most of us agree that we don't want -that-.
-
If you're a feminist - you want change
"Some of the feminists who've posted here don't want more of the same."
I don't know of any feminist that thinks that things are particularly good - so let's not change them.
All feminists want change and there is not a corner on that market. Gloria Steinem continues to work in her seventies because she wants change. Clinton is running because she wants change. People are voting for Clinton because they want change.
I think that a "some don't want change" creates drama of an "us vs them" like the simplicity of a Disney cartoon with a villian and simple, yet pure adversary. But this is media gamesmanship, not thoughtful analysis, and ultimately embarrasssing to those that engage in it.
Some people have portrayed Obama as a dove when he has stated that he'd invade Pakistan for harboring terrorists. Others are voting for Obama on the hope that, finally, we'll take the military into some African countries to save the people there and he'll have an affinity for that considering his heritage. People are voting for Obama because they think he is against military engagements and others, because they think he'll send troops to Africa. I haven't heard of any woman voting for Clinton because she'd send troops to a country where women are treated like chattel or voting for Clinton because they believe she'd send troops to anywhere.
I think that either candidate would be better than McCain, but in my estimation, Clinton's experience on the Armed Services committee and meetings with world leaders gives her an edge to understanding the nuances of situations and the players. If you are trying to get something done even in your own clubs and workplaces, having that knowledge and the contacts are key to getting something done.
-
@CindyLu
I don't think that anyone thinks things are perfect, CindyLu. But just as I know people, some feminists among them, who will do almost anything to avoid making controversial posts on listservs, I also know plenty across a broad spectrum who call a spade a shovel.
In my opinion, that doesn't create an us-versus-them dynamic as much as set up a framework for discussion and disagreement. Personally, I think arguing things out, however uncomfortable, is healthy. I'd prefer a primary fight to the kind of anointing John McCain is now receiving, and God knows, I positively hated the way some in the current administration tried to make it sound as if disagreeing with Bush on matters of defense and national security was treason.
A thing I personally value about feminism is the possibility it creates for enabling individual opinion and change. The "you feminists believe" line always warns me that I'm about to hear some sort of generalization that's just not going to be valid.
Things still aren't the way I'd like them. They're better than I imagined, which tells you one thing -- that I think we've made tremendous progress. Ask me if it's enough, and I'll say it isn't. And there are some people who do feel that debate is polarizing or who don't want change of any sort: that's simple human nature. It's also human nature that, if pushed too far, some people snap into a backlash mode. Is it what I like? Not at all. But it happens.
I hope that doesn't run counter to what you believe, but if it does, then please tell me.